PDA

View Full Version : Investigation: Broken Spells



Weimann
2009-09-08, 11:41 AM
Hello there! I have a question for you.

I recently posted this thread (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?t=124168) in the homebrew forum, in which I discuss a method of bringing melee classes up to caster classes in terms of utility. In short, I play with the thought of making the spells that screws melee classes over the most into effects that can only be accessed by having a high rank in an associated skill (called Perfection effects). This would be the ONLY way to access them; even wizards couldn't cast them from a spell book. There would also be effects that were both spells and Perfection effects, and those only castable as spells.

But, problem is that I'm not really so D&D savvy. Therefore, I turn to the playground. The question I want answers to is this one:

In order to balance casters and non-casters, what spells do you believe should be made universally available to all classes?

Remember, this question is about "what needs to be removed from casters", not "what would be cool to add to melee". There will be effects that can be cast as both spells and Perfection effects, but I'd like to single out the main offenders first, so I have something to start with.

Thanks in advance!

AstralFire
2009-09-08, 11:50 AM
You're looking at this the wrong way. Wizards beat Fighters is not a PvP statement, it's a utilitarian statement. It's not a matter of which spells beat melee (that's an incidental thing), it's a matter of which spells just do too much, too well, especially in combination. And giving Fighters Gate isn't going to help with much.

Weimann
2009-09-08, 12:02 PM
Indeed, and I'm not looking at it from a PvP perspective either. My reasoning is simply that if the wizard has a serious advantage in being able to fly over chasms, past huge groups of melee mooks that a fighter has to slash though, and then summon a an extraplanar being into the BBEG's throne room (which I'm not saying is a realistic event, I'm just making examples), why wouldn't the fighter benefit from being able to do so?

From what I've read on this forum, the big reason casters outshines non-casters is that they can do loads of stuff that the non-caster can not. Therefore, what better way to balance them than to give the non-caster the ability to do these things as well?

You say that giving a non-caster Gate will not help with much. I wonder why it wouldn't?

Myrmex
2009-09-08, 12:06 PM
Indeed, and I'm not looking at it from a PvP perspective either. My reasoning is simply that if the wizard has a serious advantage in being able to fly over chasms, past huge groups of melee mooks that a fighter has to slash though, and then summon a an extraplanar being into the BBEG's throne room (which I'm not saying is a realistic event, I'm just making examples), why wouldn't the fighter benefit from being able to do so?

From what I've read on this forum, the big reason casters outshines non-casters is that they can do loads of stuff that the non-caster can not. Therefore, what better way to balance them than to give the non-caster the ability to do these things as well?

You say that giving a non-caster Gate will not help with much. I wonder why it wouldn't?

The problem with that is that it breaks fantasy archetypes. If you could find a way to have fighters have a mechanic similar to wizards, but not look like spells, that would be good. Tome of Battle and 4e did this pretty well.

Of course, my favorite option is to simply limit or remove the really broken spells in a normal game, or give them really expensive roleplay, gold, and/or xp costs

Temet Nosce
2009-09-08, 12:07 PM
What you're proposing won't balance casters and non casters. It'll just make everybody a caster. If balance matters that much to you I'd suggest just playing a caster in the first place, or alternatively trying 4e.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-08, 12:12 PM
Can PC's fly in 4e?

Temet Nosce
2009-09-08, 12:14 PM
Can PC's fly in 4e?

Yeah, why?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-08, 12:16 PM
Just wondering. Which ones can fly?

Myrmex
2009-09-08, 12:18 PM
Just wondering. Which ones can fly?

I think the wizard & the warlock can, maybe. It's a daily power that lasts for less than 5 minutes, though.

Temet Nosce
2009-09-08, 12:21 PM
I think the wizard & the warlock can, maybe. It's a daily power that lasts for less than 5 minutes, though.

Eh, I flicked open my copy of the 4E PHB (something I haven't bothered to do in a long time) and from a brief search it appears most classes get at least one ability that lets them fly. So far it's popped up for Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, and Warlock. That's ignoring any rituals that deal with it...

Kylarra
2009-09-08, 12:21 PM
Just wondering. Which ones can fly?
All of them if they multiclass to cleric/invoker and take angelic avenger/aspect PP. :smallwink:

Myrmex
2009-09-08, 12:31 PM
Eh, I flicked open my copy of the 4E PHB (something I haven't bothered to do in a long time) and from a brief search it appears most classes get at least one ability that lets them fly. So far it's popped up for Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, Wizard, and Warlock. That's ignoring any rituals that deal with it...

Was I right about the daily limitations?

Temet Nosce
2009-09-08, 12:35 PM
Was I right about the daily limitations?

Mostly seems to be daily although a few are encounter.

Kylarra
2009-09-08, 12:37 PM
Was I right about the daily limitations?
Avenger actually has one "at will"-ish, a static ability (from a PP) that allows you to fly on a charge (although that's not very utility since you'll need to end adjacent to an enemy and such.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-08, 12:38 PM
Can PC's fly in 4e?

Technically, yes.

Practically, not really. For comparison, in 3E a warlock can fly indefinitely at sixth level, and several flying races exist starting at first level, and from level 9 there's Overland Flight. 4E has several abilities that let you fly for one move action, but that doesn't really count. A level 16 wizard, level 20 cleric, or level 22 warlock can fly a maximum of five minutes per day. So can a level 10 warlock, but he cannot take standard actions while flying. A level 22 wizard or cleric can take the entire party along. Also, a level 1 druid can transform into a flying creature, but this does not actually enable him to fly. The one PHB ritual dealing with flight requires an epic-level caster to pull it off reliably, and ends when you take damage.

This example is from the player's handbook. Overall, flying is one of those things in 4E that is generally kept away from player characters, because it would be overpowered (just like e.g. invisibility lasting more than a few seconds, or long range attacks).

Weimann
2009-09-08, 12:40 PM
The problem with that is that it breaks fantasy archetypes. If you could find a way to have fighters have a mechanic similar to wizards, but not look like spells, that would be good. Tome of Battle and 4e did this pretty well.That is indeed a problem, and it's one I realize will sit ill with many. D&D is a game where the archetypes of classical fantasy is heavily represented. Hell, it probably produced most of them.

However, looking at all the material that is daily produced to enhance it, I'm inclined to believe it can overlook some breaks with tradition.

Also, this is just the crunch part. It is quite possible I'll be able to come up with some fluff that will make the Perfection effects seem less like spells, but to do that, I must know what effects it is I must try to adapt :P

As a side note, I also like Tome of Battle ^^
Of course, my favorite option is to simply limit or remove the really broken spells in a normal game, or give them really expensive roleplay, gold, and/or xp costsQuite a valid tactic, of course, but I'd like to see how mine works ^^
What you're proposing won't balance casters and non casters. It'll just make everybody a caster. If balance matters that much to you I'd suggest just playing a caster in the first place, or alternatively trying 4e.Indeed, it will make everybody a caster. Maybe not of spells, but of effects similar to spells (which might at a later stage be fluffed as physical effects). However, if there's a setting where halflings ride dinosaurs, is it really so strange to assume there can be one where everyone can cast spells? :)

Now, let's assume that the fluff will be handled at a later stage, and accept the premise that people in this setting gain magic-like effects from skill mastery. In my own, very personal D&D variant, this happens.

I reiterate my question ^^

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-08, 12:44 PM
Technically, yes.

Practically, not really. For comparison, in 3E a warlock can fly indefinitely at sixth level, and several flying races exist starting at first level, and from level 9 there's Overland Flight. 4E has several abilities that let you fly for one move action, but that doesn't really count. A level 16 wizard, level 20 cleric, or level 22 warlock can fly a maximum of five minutes per day. So can a level 10 warlock, but he cannot attack while flying. A level 22 wizard or cleric can take the entire party along. Also, a level 1 druid can transform into a flying creature, but this does not actually enable him to fly. The one PHB ritual dealing with flight requires an epic-level caster to pull it off reliably, and ends when you take damage.

This example is from the player's handbook. Overall, flying is one of those things in 4E that is generally kept away from player characters, because it would be overpowered (just like e.g. invisibility lasting more than a few seconds, or long range attacks).

So the party is in serious trouble if a few flying monsters with bows appear?

Myrmex
2009-09-08, 12:46 PM
So the party is in serious trouble if a few flying monsters with bows appear?

I dunno, did you bring a bow?

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-08, 12:47 PM
Firing directly upwards, in real life and 3.5, I believe, can be problematic.

Firing horizontally, your movement in the X direction is independent of the gravitational pull downwards.

Firing vertically, on the other hand, means your movement in the Y direction is being counteracted by gravity...

Kylarra
2009-09-08, 12:48 PM
So the party is in serious trouble if a few flying monsters with bows appear?Yes. That's why there are very few of those in 4e. :smallwink:


Firing directly upwards, in real life and 3.5, I believe, can be problematic.
Not so in 4e!

Weimann
2009-09-08, 12:49 PM
*grumbles about thread derailment* >.>

Myrmex
2009-09-08, 12:52 PM
Firing directly upwards, in real life and 3.5, I believe, can be problematic.

Firing horizontally, your movement in the X direction is independent of the gravitational pull downwards.

Firing vertically, on the other hand, means your movement in the Y direction is being counteracted by gravity...

So you've addressed the problem of firing directly upward; perhaps you could solve it?

Hint: It uses an action

Kylarra
2009-09-08, 12:53 PM
I'm not very familiar with the system myself, but you know what might be a good "fix" approximation to what you're trying to do? Incarnum. Then you've got people using chakra [ki] to produce supernatural effects.

Temet Nosce
2009-09-08, 12:53 PM
Indeed, it will make everybody a caster. Maybe not of spells, but of effects similar to spells (which might at a later stage be fluffed as physical effects). However, if there's a setting where halflings ride dinosaurs, is it really so strange to assume there can be one where everyone can cast spells? :)

Now, let's assume that the fluff will be handled at a later stage, and accept the premise that people in this setting gain magic-like effects from skill mastery. In my own, very personal D&D variant, this happens.

I reiterate my question ^^

*shrugs*

The answer to this is basically "A lot", we're not just talking about stuff like Knock here. Even limiting yourself to core (which, I'm unsure if you're doing or not) it's going to be a serious amount of work slagging through spells. BfC spells, divination, debuffs, utility, etc, etc.

Then you'll need to try to relate them to skills, and some of them won't have any clear relation... Still, if you seriously intend to do this I'd suggest you start by looking through the spell list and pulling out any spells that are useful out of combat.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-08, 12:54 PM
60% of them?


So you've addressed the problem of firing directly upward; perhaps you could solve it?

Hint: It uses an action

Well, if we assume that the acceleration due to gravity is 9.81 m/s^2...


I'm not very familiar with the system myself, but you know what might be a good "fix" approximation to what you're trying to do? Incarnum. Then you've got people using chakra [ki] to produce supernatural effects.

No. Because then we end up with Naruto.

Temet Nosce
2009-09-08, 12:56 PM
60% of them?


Eh, from a glance at the Sorc/Wiz list for level 0 spells in the SRD more like 80-90%.

Kylarra
2009-09-08, 01:02 PM
No. Because then we end up with Naruto.Because we weren't going to end up with that anyway from shunting utility spells into [primary] combat classes? :smallconfused:

Kurald Galain
2009-09-08, 01:05 PM
So the party is in serious trouble if a few flying monsters with bows appear?
No, because it would not be fun for the DMs to use such tactics.

I realize that this is a weird answer. But one easy tactic that the 4E combat system simply can't handle is kiting. This goes for PCs as well: an elven ranger with a longbow can single-handedly deal with most threats from the monster manual without taking damage; the way to deal with this is not allowing miniatures to walk off the battle map.

This goes for "upwards" as well; the rules are murky at best on how three-dimensional combat is supposed to work, and where some people claim that the word "square" is supposed to mean "cube" instead, yet others claim that it's simply not possible to ascend off the battle map vertically.

The other solution is that other than bows, there aren't all that many powers that affect something out of charge range. In the PHB, at least, none under level 20 and only a handful above that, unless you're playing a wizard.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-08, 01:13 PM
That's interesting.

Yukitsu
2009-09-08, 01:21 PM
No, because it would not be fun for the DMs to use such tactics.

I realize that this is a weird answer. But one easy tactic that the 4E combat system simply can't handle is kiting. This goes for PCs as well: an elven ranger with a longbow can single-handedly deal with most threats from the monster manual without taking damage; the way to deal with this is not allowing miniatures to walk off the battle map.

This goes for "upwards" as well; the rules are murky at best on how three-dimensional combat is supposed to work, and where some people claim that the word "square" is supposed to mean "cube" instead, yet others claim that it's simply not possible to ascend off the battle map vertically.

The other solution is that other than bows, there aren't all that many powers that affect something out of charge range. In the PHB, at least, none under level 20 and only a handful above that, unless you're playing a wizard.

This is the biggest hit to versimiliatude I've seen for 4th ed, ever, for so many different reasons. I thought it was OK, and not my cup of tea, but now I think I'm a detractor.

Myrmex
2009-09-08, 01:24 PM
This is the biggest hit to versimiliatude I've seen for 4th ed, ever, for so many different reasons. I thought it was OK, and not my cup of tea, but now I think I'm a detractor.

I hate to say it, because I'm in love with the 4e mechanic, but it feels too WoW for me. Not enough S and too much G in the GNS.

Kylarra
2009-09-08, 01:32 PM
This is the biggest hit to versimiliatude I've seen for 4th ed, ever, for so many different reasons. I thought it was OK, and not my cup of tea, but now I think I'm a detractor.I dunno, I don't personally find a gentleman's agreement to not play a certain way any different than 3.5.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-08, 01:33 PM
A common military tactic (bows) not being used is a different matter than Chain-Gaiting, I believe.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-08, 01:34 PM
This example is from the player's handbook. Overall, flying is one of those things in 4E that is generally kept away from player characters, because it would be overpowered (just like e.g. invisibility lasting more than a few seconds, or long range attacks).
It's not overpowered it's just encounter ending against challenges which can't deal with it ... it's fun. Contextually powerful abilities put extra strain on the DM ... but meh, that's what he is there for.

Kylarra
2009-09-08, 01:38 PM
A common military tactic (bows) not being used is a different matter than Chain-Gaiting, I believe.
Bows are used, just not many floating gunnery platforms.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-08, 01:40 PM
If you're a monster with wings, you'd likely figure out that using a bow is advantageous to you.

Chain-Gating and the like, on the other hand, are rules abuse.

Kylarra
2009-09-08, 01:41 PM
If you're a monster with wings, you'd likely figure out that using a bow is advantageous to you.

Chain-Gating and the like, on the other hand, are rules abuse.
So abusing flaws inherent in the system is not the same as abusing flaws inherent in the system?

Yukitsu
2009-09-08, 01:42 PM
In my opinion, if I can do it on a segway scooter IRL against a guy on foot, it should be an option in game. Then it's an issue of tactical abuse. The alternative is just rules.

Edit: Now I have to go kite a guy with my segway scooter and an armfull of rocks.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-08, 01:43 PM
Using a frikkin bow, a completely mundane weapon, is different from breaking the magic system, in my book.

Yora
2009-09-08, 01:48 PM
So the party is in serious trouble if a few flying monsters with bows appear?
They are in serious trouble if they are too dumb to get cover and try to force the attackers into areas where they have to land if they want to continue to attack (indoors, forest floor).

Myrmex
2009-09-08, 01:51 PM
So abusing flaws inherent in the system is not the same as abusing flaws inherent in the system?

Well, 2 & 1000 are the same in that both are numbers....

PinkysBrain
2009-09-08, 01:53 PM
So abusing flaws inherent in the system is not the same as abusing flaws inherent in the system?
In 3e kiting is intended, there is no inherent expectation that CRs are always correct to the same extent as 4e ... it's entirely upto the DM to plan around player capabilities. Chain gating was never intended, it's abuse because you are taking advantage of WotC lack of foresight.

Kylarra
2009-09-08, 01:55 PM
Using a frikkin bow, a completely mundane weapon, is different from breakign the magic system, yes.
As a DM it is your lot to pull from whatever books you want, including using "that damn crab". You could, in all verisimilitude, have them showing up to guard all wizard areas because you know that they'd have a high int and would want the best possible.

or even easier,


Disjunction. Just disjunction.


As a DM your job is both to maintain the facade of verismilitude and provide encounters that don't utterly own your PCs*. Certain concessions have to be made in the name of fun. (http://agc.deskslave.org/comic_viewer.html?goNumber=183)

*assuming they aren't going out of their way to fight things beyond their level.

Yukitsu
2009-09-08, 01:58 PM
My level 9 necromancer just got hit by a cleric 15's holy word, while his level 18 cleric buddy started up a binding spell. I don't think I quite buy that statement.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-08, 02:00 PM
You spilled your drink on your DM's books didn't you?

Kylarra
2009-09-08, 02:00 PM
My level 9 necromancer just got hit by a cleric 15's holy word, while his level 18 cleric buddy started up a binding spell. I don't think I quite buy that statement.
Was that fun for you? :smalltongue:

Kurald Galain
2009-09-08, 02:01 PM
It's not overpowered it's just encounter ending against challenges which can't deal with it ... it's fun. Contextually powerful abilities put extra strain on the DM ... but meh, that's what he is there for.
Oh, I'm not saying that I believe flight is overpowered; I can name several RPGs where any starting character can have permanent flight if he wishes to. I'm just saying that the 4E designers believe flight is overpowered.


So abusing flaws inherent in the system is not the same as abusing flaws inherent in the system?
Any game with a system can be broken. The difference is whether breaking it requires something ludicrous that defies both physics and common sense (e.g. chain gating) or if it requires is a valid and ages-old tactic in real life (e.g. archery).

Yukitsu
2009-09-08, 02:02 PM
Was that fun for you? :smalltongue:

The fact that I survived was fun. :smalltongue:


You spilled your drink on your DM's books didn't you?

No, I attacked the nation capital solo, because they ticked me off. Score was 15 of them, to none of me, and I plan on coming back.

Kylarra
2009-09-08, 02:04 PM
The fact that I survived was fun. :smalltongue:



No, I attacked the nation capital solo, because they ticked me off. Score was 15 of them, to none of me, and I plan on coming back.
See, you reminded me that I need to caveat everything I say again. :smalltongue:

I'm AFB right now, but iirc there are a few flight monsters with ranged attacks, but they are few and far between. If you feel that it breaks verisimilitude to not have them, by all means, make them more plentiful.


Yes. But I know only one game that believes those concessions have to include "no flight for more than five seconds (or maybe one short combat per day if you're really badass), no invisibility for more than five seconds, and no powers with a range over 35 meters".Sigh. I'm not talking about 4e's design flaws in general, but addressing the "ranged gunnery platform" issue that seems to be breaking people's verisimilitude. It doesn't seem to be different (other than hamfisted into the system) than the normal situation of not throwing situations* that the party has no chance of handling at them.

Also, I've played games where you're not allowed to fly or be invisible without significant outside aid (tech/artifacts)!

*Again, assuming some sort of "mandatory" encounter and not "my level 1 fighter charges the ancient red wyrm".

Kurald Galain
2009-09-08, 02:06 PM
Certain concessions have to be made in the name of fun.
Yes. But I know only one game that believes those concessions have to include "no flight for more than five seconds (or maybe one short combat per day if you're really badass), no invisibility for more than five seconds, and no powers with a range over 35 meters".


They are in serious trouble if they are too dumb to get cover and try to force the attackers into areas where they have to land if they want to continue to attack (indoors, forest floor).
FYI, the attack penalties for cover or concealment (forest doesn't qualify for anything more than that) are too small to prevent kiting.

Although interestingly, lying spread-eagled on the floor will make you harder to hit for an archer flying above you.

Weimann
2009-09-08, 02:18 PM
Ooookay, not to be a killjoy, but could you discuss this in some topic that is not about something completely different?

Tehnar
2009-09-08, 02:26 PM
Back to the OT:

I think the following should not be allowed by spells and/or magic items. I wont get into the specific spells, as I believe the real problems stem from the factors below.

1) Improved action economy. Getting more actions for free (or almost free) is bad. The main offender in this category is celerity coupled with immunity to daze effects.

2) Easy and cheap metamagic. I believe metamagic feats in and of themselves do not break casters, however coupled with metamagic reducers (of any kind) lead towards the path of brokeness. Examples include metamagic rods, incantantrix, DMM, etc.

3) Emulating other classes class features with spells. A spell should not, IMO, allow a caster to reproduce another class special shtick without a cost or extremely low duration. Now I find that Divine power spell is a fine spell, but not in combination with DMM persist or quicken.

4) Ambiguous spell descriptions. I think that every DM should go over a character sheet with a player and clearly define what can and what cannot a spell do. For example a DM should inform his players does a rubber bouncy ball qualify as a "surface" for a symbol of insanity spell.

lsfreak
2009-09-08, 02:50 PM
1) Improved action economy. Getting more actions for free (or almost free) is bad. The main offender in this category is celerity coupled with immunity to daze effects.

Actually, the three biggest offenders are Quicken Spell, Arcane Spellsurge, and Arcane Fusion. One of them's pretty much fine until you get into metamagic reducers (but melee still needs a similar function), the other two are partially balanced in that the sorcerer needs some way of competing with a wizard but can utterly break the action economy (6 spells per round at high levels but only costs 2 slots a round, and then throw on share spell and imbue familiar with spell ability just for laughs).

Tehnar
2009-09-08, 03:08 PM
Thank you for mentioning that. I didn't have much experience with those two spells, so didn't think of them.

Quicken I think is a fine metamagic until you get the said metamagic reducers. I think the melee analog to that is being able to move and make a full attack.

lsfreak
2009-09-08, 03:17 PM
Thank you for mentioning that. I didn't have much experience with those two spells, so didn't think of them.

Quicken I think is a fine metamagic until you get the said metamagic reducers. I think the melee analog to that is being able to move and make a full attack.

Actually the melee analogue to casting in general is being able to move and full attack. Quicken would be allowing them to also make their full attack minus their one or two lowest iteratives as a swift action.

Doug Lampert
2009-09-08, 03:19 PM
A common military tactic (bows) not being used is a different matter than Chain-Gaiting, I believe.
Who says bows aren't used? Effectively EVERY character in my game carries a bow as a last ditch backup weapon. Some of them have trouble hitting the broad side of a barn since they aren't proficient or dex based. But in the open they have an attack with 30 or 40 square ranges that still hits on a 20.

As for flying monsters. You're assuming large numbers of flying monsters with usable hands that could win an archery duel against anyone they couldn't easily defeat hand to hand exist. Care to name these monsters?

Since you are big on archery being "real world", care to name any creature that can do that in the real world? Otherwise the claim that a "real world" tactic is being ignored is provable nonsense. There never has been a real world tactic based on using a bow while flying.

As for the claim that powers are limited to 35'. No one actually said that except people "reacting" to the claim. What was said was that most powers are limited to charge range, and charge range a double move in both 4th ed and 3.x. And most powers << all powers. Consider weapon powers using a bow or a wizards magic missile, there are any number of ranged powers with ranges of more than 35', which is one reason flying archery doesn't rule the world, almost everyone has something they can still do even at such ranges.

Pharaoh's Fist
2009-09-08, 03:23 PM
As for flying monsters. You're assuming large numbers of flying monsters with usable hands that could win an archery duel against anyone they couldn't easily defeat hand to hand exist. Care to name these monsters?
My point: Flying monsters with bows seem like they would be very problematic.
Your point: Such monsters do not exist.

Correct?

Now, since you seem to know more about 4e than me, I shall ask you what monsters there are that can fly and use bows.


Since you are big on archery being "real world", care to name any creature that can do that in the real world? Otherwise the claim that a "real world" tactic is being ignored is provable nonsense. There never has been a real world tactic based on using a bow while flying.
There have been real world tactics based on shooting people from above. Things work out better for those on high ground. That is what I was referring to. Shooting people while flying is a logical extrapolation of a common real world tactic.

Tyndmyr
2009-09-08, 03:29 PM
Actually, the three biggest offenders are Quicken Spell, Arcane Spellsurge, and Arcane Fusion. One of them's pretty much fine until you get into metamagic reducers (but melee still needs a similar function), the other two are partially balanced in that the sorcerer needs some way of competing with a wizard but can utterly break the action economy (6 spells per round at high levels but only costs 2 slots a round, and then throw on share spell and imbue familiar with spell ability just for laughs).

Well, how hard is it to pick up immunity to daze? I don't recall it being all that common...at least, not in ways normally available to wizards. Is there a way that isn't an obscure race, and works consistantly(since buffing ahead of time has obvious shortcomings)?

Eldariel
2009-09-08, 03:32 PM
Well, how hard is it to pick up immunity to daze? I don't recall it being all that common...at least, not in ways normally available to wizards. Is there a way that isn't an obscure race, and works consistantly(since buffing ahead of time has obvious shortcomings)?

A spell, Favor of the Martyr, is the most common means. It's replicable with Limited Wish, and persistable with Incantatrix. Can also be used as a part of Arcane Fusion-nova.

PinkysBrain
2009-09-08, 03:58 PM
Well, how hard is it to pick up immunity to daze?
Even without immunity to daze it's just plain overpowered. An action now in response to an attack is better than an action later. Casters already have the best defences (and contingency at higher levels). Martial characters deserve this more than casters.

Kurald Galain
2009-09-08, 04:01 PM
Ooookay, not to be a killjoy, but could you discuss this in some topic that is not about something completely different?

Yes.

Thread about kiting in 4E (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6889089), let us continue our threadjack there.

HAND.